The order in Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names has been issued. As my firm is involved in this case, I can not comment too deeply on it. However, here is an outline of notable points in the ruling.
- Domain names are “property” subject to seizure. The court relied on the holding in Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). See Order at 12-15.
- The Kentucky Court has jurisdiction over the domain names by virtue of the Court’s holding that the domains have a “presence” in Kentucky. See Order at 15-22.
- The domain names are “gambling devices” as defined under KRS 520.010(4)(a) & (b) since they allow Kentuckians to access gambling services. See Order at 22-25.
- Poker, despite having significant elements of skill, is still “gambling” and a game of chance. See Order at 25-26.
- Any domain names that block access to Kentucky residents are to be relieved of the forfeiture order. See Order at 39-40.